New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 22, 2005

Is Sallie Baliunas guilty of crimes against humanity for doubting whether global warming will really be catastrophic? She considers the case against her.

Comments

MP|9.22.05 @ 9:31AM|#

OK...let's get the character attacks against Sallie out of the way right up front and let the remainder of this thread focus on the science, shall we?

NOTE: Wikipedia link provided as a more balanced reference.

MP|9.22.05 @ 9:36AM|#

OK...let's get the character attacks against Sallie out of the way right up front and let the remainder of this thread focus on the science, shall we?

NOTE: Stupid Reason server is still holding posts with multiple links for review. Sorry to have this posted a zillion times.

MP|9.22.05 @ 9:37AM|#

Attack #1

MP|9.22.05 @ 9:38AM|#

Attack #2 (albeit more information than an attack...the attack reference is due to the website on which this is found).

|9.22.05 @ 9:43AM|#

Man, you'd think Reason would be able to find one - at least one - global warming skeptic who doesn't come with that kind of baggage.

Ron Hardin|9.22.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Science works not by peer review but by curiosity.

If peer review enables curiosity, then peer review works. Otherwise you get what you get with global warming, a political debate in robes.

One thing needed to get curiosity to kick in is posing the thing as an interesting question. That has not happened.

|9.22.05 @ 9:52AM|#

"Baggage?"

I tried my best to read every word on those two links, MP, but the level of argument I saw there wasn't much above what you see on those 9-11 conspiracy sites. My favorite was the first one along the right side where they suggested you search for certain people in Google along with terms like "Sun Myung Moon".

MP|9.22.05 @ 9:54AM|#

Slode,

When you bother to comment on the specifics of the article, I will bother to address your gripes.

|9.22.05 @ 9:57AM|#

Yea for global warming. It will help keep the next Ice Age away. And we are pretty much 100 percent sure that's going to happen; it's only a matter of when.

|9.22.05 @ 10:00AM|#

Alarmists are part of the market.

But if the climate alarmists are right AND the peak oil alarmists are right, the problem will take care of itself by implementing no regulatory systems whatsoever because we'll have exhausted the low-cost fossil fuels that contribute to the increases in gases in the first place.

|9.22.05 @ 10:02AM|#

MP: No. It's been done before. I wasn't commenting on the article. I was commenting on the fact that Reason's, and the libertarian's, and the right's in general, reaction to environmental issues is to periodically reguritate these dubious screeds by the same three or four people - that for some unfathomable reason political ideology is determining whether or not a problem can be believed to exist rather than how such a problem should be politically dealt with.

Am I the only one who sees this?

|9.22.05 @ 10:03AM|#

"Yea for global warming. It will help keep the next Ice Age away. "

Yeah, that might be nice, if global warming were limited to making things toasty, and didn't include screwing up weather patterns and increasing the incidence of severe storms.

|9.22.05 @ 10:15AM|#

Slode:

"I was commenting on the fact that Reason's, and the libertarian's, and the right's in general, reaction to environmental issues is to periodically reguritate these dubious screeds by the same three or four people - that for some unfathomable reason political ideology is determining whether or not a problem can be believed to exist rather than how such a problem should be politically dealt with. Am I the only one who sees this?"

Well, yeah, considering that it's all based on personal anecdotal observation and gross generalization, rather than actual research and facts. I'm not saying that "the libertarian community" is entirely perfect in its tactics, but you're exaggerating to the point of absurdity, and basing it on nothing than personal observations.

|9.22.05 @ 10:18AM|#

It's as if the libertarians have no answer for the problem, so instead are resorting to trying to convince everyone the problem doesn't exist.

I've posited before that it's because hard-core libertarians refuse to admit the existence of any problem which cannot be solved exclusively by Rugged Individualism and/or the Unfettered Free Market.

|9.22.05 @ 10:26AM|#

Sifting through the available science, and sorting the junk from the good, is an integral step in that process.

Just out of curiosity, Even--what, if anything, do you consider "good science" in regards to global warming?

|9.22.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Jennifer:

So true.

Problem is, those few "hardcore" libs' views get projected onto "libertarians" as a group, as can be seen in Slode's screeds above. And then, whenever any "libertarian" puts forth any criticism of any global warming claims, people like Slode say "see! I told you!", and any real substance in that criticism is swept away, under the auspices of those hardcorists' extreme views.

|9.22.05 @ 10:28AM|#

Evan--

Perhaps Slode was just referring to people who have posted here.

|9.22.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Jennifer - I think it would be more fair (and accurate) to say that "hard-core libertarians" like myself believe that government doesn't improve on the free-market and self-reliance, and almost always impedes these processes from solving a problem, and finally, usually creates more (in number and complexity) problems when it tries to solve one.

I can think of many problems the free market and self-reliance can't solve: Asteroids crashing into the earth, supervolcanoes exploding, airborne ebola epidemics, etc. Heck, even crime - nothing in the market will ever prevent all crime. It's just that the state based response in all of this scenarios is worse.

That's why I generally refuse to talk to those who set up the straw-man of "libertopia" - if there is one group that doesn't advocate "utopia" it's libertarians. We envision a world that will always have problems and evil that will require personal initiative and responsibility to combat. Can't think of anything utopian about that.

|9.22.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Jennifer:

Before you stamp me as one of those "hardcore libertarians", let me just say, I do believe that global warming is a problem, and one that needs to be dealt with in some manner.

Anyway, I don't know enough about it to get too deep into the science, but I have seen varying climate models that are wildly different. Some of the science that Ron has explained here (basically, that it is getting warmer, but there is no consensus, and it's probably not as fast as the doomsdayers say) has seemed pretty levelheaded to me. On the other hand, my Unc forwarded me a boston globe op-ed wherein the author (someone at the globe) basically just rattled off a list of recent weather disturbances, and without citing one bit of evidence, claimed that they were all a direct result of global warming. This is the idiocy that needs to be squashed, just as the idiocy of "global warming is nothing but a myth" needs to be squashed.

MP|9.22.05 @ 10:35AM|#

Jennifer,

Sallie's article points out, IHHO, good science vs. junk science regarding GW. Her view of "good science" highlights plenty of science that supports the presence of GW. The debate is not simply about GW. It is about human contributions to it and if any policy actions are needed to address it. GW is not necessarily a bad thing. One can accept the science behind GW without believing in an impending global catastrophe.

|9.22.05 @ 10:36AM|#

"Perhaps Slode was just referring to people who have posted here."

Perhaps, but not likely. When one says "libertarians", how often are they really referring to only hit&run commenters?

|9.22.05 @ 10:41AM|#

hard-core libertarians" like myself believe that government doesn't improve on the free-market and self-reliance

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that man-made global warming has been proven beyond a doubt, and even the Limbaughs and Hannitys admit that at this rate, the ice caps (and our coastal cities) will be completely gone in fifty years. Let's also assume that Peak Oil is absolutely untrue, and gas will remain the cheapest form of energy transportation available. What is the non-coercive free-market solution for that?

MP|9.22.05 @ 10:46AM|#

Jennifer,

Your hypothetical creates a "tragedy of the commons" issue for which there is no free market solution. Libertarian themed solutions to these issues typically involve a regulatory scheme which sets up a marketplace but implements quotas on the overall market. This allows the actors to trade resources and maximize efficiency of resource usage, while the quota/cap prevents overutilization. A variety of these solutions are in place already to tackle various problems such as fishing and pollution.

fyodor|9.22.05 @ 10:50AM|#

Gentlemen, and gentleladies,

It's friggin' human nature, from all points on and off the political spectrum, to rationalize one's own POV (because, it seems to me, the need to feel "right" is a powerful human motivator).

To think either that libertarians would be impervious to this effect or that libertarians are especially prone to such an effect is ludicrous (well, one might think that any group that one sees as being largely in the wrong might be especially prone to this effect just because they have more to rationalize (and vice versa), but obviously that begs the question of who's largely in the wrong (or right) and is therefore besides the point).

So to the the global warming naysayers here, I simple say beware the potential for your own bias. It doesn't take a government funded climate scientist to see why it would be better for libertarians if anthropogenic (sp?) climate change were nonsense. A little reflection, please.

But all that said, that hardly PROVES that global warming naysayers are wrong. And, in fact, the opposite effect is equally at play, since global warming is just great for people who want to control others via the political process. If naysayers, after properly reflecting on the potential for being biased themselves, genuinely believe science is on their side, it hardly addresses the core issue to accuse them of bias as if it's a foregone conclusion.

Once again, I say some form of graduated taxation/fines based on level of concrete harm is the best approach. Which inevitably means using the preponderance of scientific consensus, which means the global warming alarmists will have won. Well, if they're wrong, it only means that the right side doesn't always win in a democracy, but it's the best system we have. But if we back a graduated punishment regime rather than choosing between top-down central planning versus absolute non-interference, we stand the best chance of addressing the potential problem with the least amount of economic interference.

|9.22.05 @ 10:52AM|#

I say some form of graduated taxation/fines based on level of concrete harm is the best approach

We have found a heretic. May we burn him?

So, if fyodor weighs the same as a duck, he's made of carbon...

:->

|9.22.05 @ 10:53AM|#

"What is the non-coercive free-market solution for that?"

My first inclination is to ask a question back to you, but I hate when people do that to me, so I'll answer first.

People, having been educated to the real threat, will voluntarily choose less harmful alternatives, even if the costs increase. The wealthy will generally do it more than the poor, as they have more disposable income with which to pay for it. The poor will pay for it to the extent they can, meanwhile, but don't have to really reduce their standard of living too greatly, as they can use some cheaper fuel. Also, people will boycott companies that unneccessarily use the damaging fuel, or sell it indiscriminately.

Don't think that could possibly happen absent coercion? Well, then, let me ask you my question - if people didn't have these values, how in the world are you going to get the majority in a democracy to vote for coercive measures to enforce these non-existant values? If instead of being able to say "the government will pursue my values," instead people had to say "I am responsible for living by my values," would that be an improvement, or a step backwards?

MP|9.22.05 @ 11:00AM|#

People, having been educated to the real threat, will voluntarily choose less harmful alternatives

I reject this principle as being too optimistic. It discounts how people make decisions related to short term vs. long term consequences and direct vs. indirect consequences. If my knowledge of GW leads me to believe that in 50 years the coasts will be flooded, but I live in Kansas, then I likely won't care (i.e. won't have any real incentive to act).

|9.22.05 @ 11:01AM|#

People, having been educated to the real threat, will voluntarily choose less harmful alternatives, even if the costs increase.

These would be the same rational people who still smoke despite knowing about lung cancer, still go to tanning beds despite knowing about melanoma, still have unprotected sex despite knowing where babies come from, and still build houses in flood zones despite knowing about water damage?

|9.22.05 @ 11:02AM|#

Addition:

There is also the road of consent to coercion (not as much of an oxymoron as it sounds). If you have the right to secede from a sovereign, you can actually consent to the coercion imposed by not seceding.

How do you get people to keep from committing crimes under that scenario? Well, the answer is somewhat more complex than what I can do justice on a message board, but the shorthand would be ostracization - noone would do business with you, not even to sell you food. Your standard of living would crash to subsistence farmer very quickly.

So another libertarian friendly version would be tort liability or even (gasp!) regulation pursuant to a sovereign you freely consent to.

Again, I can't do the concept justice on a message board, you'd have to read Rothbard and his ilk to get the true flavor of it. Mises.org has some free materials. Also, if you google "the myth of the rule of law" you'll get a decent law review article (easily accessible by non-attornies) that puts forth similar arguments.

|9.22.05 @ 11:04AM|#

MP,

The Kyoto protocol implements a system of quotas and a marketplace to trade them. By your standards, it would seem to be an ideal libertarian solution.

MP|9.22.05 @ 11:12AM|#

The Kyoto protocol implements a system of quotas and a marketplace to trade them. By your standards, it would seem to be an ideal libertarian solution.

It would, if I thought that GW was a problem that needs to be addressed to the extent that it is worthwhile to allocate the resources to this. I don't think that.

|9.22.05 @ 11:14AM|#

"If my knowledge of GW leads me to believe that in 50 years the coasts will be flooded, but I live in Kansas, then I likely won't care (i.e. won't have any real incentive to act)."

Then I would denounce you as an evil person, who doesn't care about others, but is just a greedy, self-centered person. Further, I would avoid doing any business with you because I would find you truly immoral and evil. I think many other people would too.

Note, that such thinking as you identified is ingrained into people who assume that they aren't responsible for the indirect results of their actions because "the state will take care of it." If you knew that the state wasn't there to force others to act according to your values, you'd be alot more concerned about what the indirect results of your actions would be...

|9.22.05 @ 11:15AM|#

"These would be the same rational people who still smoke despite knowing about lung cancer, still go to tanning beds despite knowing about melanoma, still have unprotected sex despite knowing where babies come from, and still build houses in flood zones despite knowing about water damage?"

I won't address your second question until you address my first question.

|9.22.05 @ 11:19AM|#

What I don't understand is why that resistance manifests itself in these silly attempts at denial of increasingly sound science...

The sounder the science is the smaller the anthropogenic warming is. The envirohysterics are in denial about that.

MP|9.22.05 @ 11:19AM|#

Further, I would avoid doing any business with you because I would find you truly immoral and evil.

And yet you deny the existence of libertopia.

|9.22.05 @ 11:21AM|#

Actually,, quasibill, it was a rhetorical question, not one actually demanding an answer. But no--I don't think the majority of people would voluntarily accept a lower standard of living unless they, personally, were affected. So you'd have the people who don't care about global warming because they live inland, or because they'll be dead anyway before things get too bad, or because they're rich enough to buy their way out of problems, or simply because they lack foresight--yes, global warming will wash away my house in ten years, but that's no reason for me to give up my SUV today!

Considering the examples in my question--the smokers, the tanners, and so forth--you've got large numbers of people who don't do the right thing in their OWN self-interest, yet you think they'll do the right thing for the benefit of others?

|9.22.05 @ 11:22AM|#

quasibill writes: "People, having been educated to the real threat, will voluntarily choose less harmful alternatives, even if the costs increase."

It helps a lot if there *are* less harmful alternatives available.

Like the US automakers dragging their feet on hybrid technology, US businesses don't want to bother. They'd rather talk about maybe doing something in the long term, 15-20 years out, as the US carmakers are doing with their push for hydrogen cars. In the meantime, they can pursue business as usual.

It would be better if US companies, instead, were hell-bent on developing the technologies required, rather than putting their effort into lobbying.

|9.22.05 @ 11:24AM|#

While global warming is a bit more difficult to address, because of its scale and because both its causes and effects are hard to measure, I've never really understood why using government coercion to address enviromental issues in general is considered inherently unliberterian.

As liberterians, we basically agree that the proper role of the government is to protect
a)life
b)limb
c) and property

And now what does enviromental damage generally tend to harm, on micro and macroscopic scales?
a)life
b)limb
c) and property

Of course a lot of the radical green types are more concerned about perserving sacred mother earth simply for its own sake, but the point remains the same. While I certainly am not an advocate of blanket regulations or majorly intrusive legislation without a firm scientific justification, I don't think a liberterian is really admitting anything about the shortcomings of the free market, because protecting life, limb and property is not what it is for. Just because pollution, etc., isn't doesn't represent intentinoal coercion, doensn't mean it doesn't threaten the things we generally believe a government is necessary to protect.

I'm really not up to offering an opinion one way or another on how we (yes, read: the government) should respond various enviromental issues, but I think there is a case for liberterian enviromentalism that goes beyond advocating personal and private responsibility.

|9.22.05 @ 11:25AM|#

"Note, that such thinking as you identified is ingrained into people who assume that they aren't responsible for the indirect results of their actions because "the state will take care of it.""

Nah, they just don't care, because they don't have to, and caring might inconvenience them.

Hell, look at all the people who drive with more, and brighter, headlights than they need, blinding other drivers, just to look 'kewl'. If they fail that test of caring for their fellow man, why should they care if their SUV's emissions will put Micronesia under water?

Dave W.|9.22.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Slode:

I think the reason for pervasive denial of enviro concerns has to do with the fact that libertarians tend to be quite beholden to big business and corporate thinking.

Businesses and corporation do not think or act on a long timeframe. If the world is not ending next quarter, then corpthink says it is not yet time to waste profits attempting to mitigate the problem. Anything going on subsequent to next quarter is, by definition, somewhat speculative. In other words, business-think is short-sighted.

Anyway, since big business won't think on a long time frame, then neither will libertarians. If global warming takes 200 years to destroy the Earth, then it is speculative and the business-oriented-libertarian will emphasize that speculativeness every chance she gets. That is what the shareholders want to hear, and the shareholders are the philosopher kings in this domain, course.

And that is sad. And not particularly libertarian neccessarily either.

MP|9.22.05 @ 11:32AM|#

Does anyone care to debate the actual article? Please, enough philosophy already.

|9.22.05 @ 11:34AM|#

"The Kyoto protocol implements a system of quotas and a marketplace to trade them. By your standards, it would seem to be an ideal libertarian solution."

Unfortunately, Kyoto is much, much, much more than that. It is also an indirect subsidy to China and India, as they are exempted from it entirely, among other provisions.

The example you want is the 92 amendments to the clean air act. That's a very successful emissions market. The biggest problem with them was that industry overestimated the cost of compliance (shocker, eh?) and therefore the overall quota was set too high. Most industries voluntarily (gasp! Not possible outside libertopia, right?) purchase and/or retain emissions credits with the express intent of not using them for the PR benefits.

|9.22.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Anyone here heard of the Little Optimum? Give it a Google and you'll find out that we had global warming 1000 years ago. It happened all by itself, no help from SUVs.

|9.22.05 @ 11:38AM|#

"But no--I don't think the majority of people would voluntarily accept a lower standard of living unless they, personally, were affected"

But that doesn't answer my question. If you can't get a majority of people to voluntarily do what you want, how are you going to get a majority of voters to vote in representatives to enforce what you want done?

If the values aren't out there in the first place, how will democracy ever reflect them?

|9.22.05 @ 11:39AM|#

quasibill writes: "Unfortunately, Kyoto is much, much, much more than that. It is also an indirect subsidy to China and India, as they are exempted from it entirely, among other provisions."

An indirect subsidy to China would seem to be moot now, given Bush's fiscal policies.

|9.22.05 @ 11:39AM|#

thoreau, "So, joe, do me a favor and page me if anybody uses creationist tactics. Otherwise I'm staying out."

There seemed to be a certain amount of "God of the Gaps" Baliunas' piece by my reading.

Let's say that Baliunas is an "ID" global warming denier, rather than a "Creationist" global warming denier.

With all the laser-sharp criticism libertarians use agains the IDers' tactics, I cannot believe how rare it is for y'all to recognize when the same game is being played by the Marshall Institute/ExxonMobile/Green Earth Society people.

"People, having been educated to the real threat, will voluntarily choose less harmful alternatives, even if the costs increase." Yes, that's exactly how the overgrazing of common fields played out. Exactly.

|9.22.05 @ 11:40AM|#

"It would be better if US companies, instead, were hell-bent on developing the technologies required, rather than putting their effort into lobbying."

Exactly the point - in the absence of government, would there be ANY point at all in spending money on lobbying? Would they be able to use their lobbying, as they do now, to help crush start up competition, that might be willing, able, and ready to provide the technologies you desire? And if the technologies you desire satisfy the desire of many people, wouldn't there be ALOT of money to be made in providing it to you? And therefore alot of incentive to actually provide it?

|9.22.05 @ 11:41AM|#

"And yet you deny the existence of libertopia."

Strike one from the list of people with a meaningful point to be made...

|9.22.05 @ 11:42AM|#

"If the values aren't out there in the first place, how will democracy ever reflect them?"

It's far easier to vote for values than to practice them yourself.

|9.22.05 @ 11:46AM|#

"If you can't get a majority of people to voluntarily do what you want, how are you going to get a majority of voters to vote in representatives to enforce what you want done?"

Actually, it would be much easier. People don't like to be suckers, doing all the heavy lifting while parasites lay back, contribute nothing, and reap the benefits. They also don't like to put in effort if they know that their efforts, alone, aren't enough to make a dent in the problem.

Free rider, tragedy of the commmons, and Mexican standoff dynamics are the real Achilles Heel of the anti-regulation crowd.

|9.22.05 @ 11:46AM|#

quasibill writes: "And if the technologies you desire satisfy the desire of many people, wouldn't there be ALOT of money to be made in providing it to you? And therefore alot of incentive to actually provide it?"

Apparently not enough to get the Big Three to be serious about hybrids, until Japan showed there was a market.

Fact is, it's far easier to sell what you sold last year, than it is to invent something new, especially if the market for the new thing is unproven.

That's a risk. American companies prefer to play it safe. Ironically, if the government passed regulations requiring a certain level of 'greenness', that would make green design *safer* for American firms. As it is, they're reluctant to make that leap unless they have to.

GM would be much happier if they could sell last year's SUV's forever.

|9.22.05 @ 11:52AM|#

"Yes, that's exactly how the overgrazing of common fields played out. Exactly."

Yep. For once, you're right Joe, even if you meant to be wrong. Whence did the concept of private property arise at all, if not from the realization of the tragedy of the commons? And note that there is much scholarship out there regarding non-property, non-state responses (on a local level) dealing with the tragedy of the commons.

So, yes, people will voluntarily adapt to address tragedies of the commons when they are educated about its inherent problems.

|9.22.05 @ 11:56AM|#

Free rider, tragedy of the commmons, and Mexican standoff dynamics are the real Achilles Heel of the anti-regulation crowd.

Just how is the tragedy of the commons an Achilles' Heel of the anti-regulation crowd? We want to divvy the damn thing up and sell it to private owners.

Shannon Love|9.22.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Jennifer,

"Hypothetically speaking, let's say that man-made global warming has been proven beyond a doubt, ... What is the non-coercive free-market solution for that?"

Natural technological evolution will most likely resolve the problem on its own. Look at the evolution of energy sources in the last 300 years. We moved from muscle,wood and wax to coal and whale oil and then to petroleum, hydroelectric and nuclear. The rise of petroleum is especially instructive because it didn't occur because coal was in short supply but because petroleum worked better. The natural history of energy technology is to move to sources that are (1) on demand and (2) more compact. Carbon emitting energy sources have long since reached their maximum energy output and density. Without any government coercion, carbon emitting fuel sources will die out on their own.

A major problem that you overlook is the very real possibility that government coercion will exacerbate the problem rather than fixing it. I would argue that it is in fact government intervention in the market that has got us to this possibly precarious point in the first place.

Look at the history of nuclear power. In the 50's, governments embraced nuclear power as a symbol of national prestige and pushed the building of plants far sooner than market forces would have. Had the freemarket driven the building of nuclear power plants, they would have started small scale and built up slowly over time. We might not have seen large scale plants until the late 70's but it is highly likely they would have been safer and more efficient than those that did get built. In the 1970's, the political tide turned against nuclear power and state power has been used to strangle it off ever since. Had the government never intervened in pro or con in nuclear power it is highly likely that US would now be producing anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the carbon dioxide it now does.

Government systemically makes poor decisions. The more complicated and long-term the problem the worse the decisions become. We saw the utter disaster that resulted in 1970's when governments undertook to regulate the energy markets. They created the "energy crises" whose economic and political repercussions impoverished and killed millions. The crises evaporated only when government intervention did.

So the real question is: given the history of energy technology and the track record of government in such matters in general, what makes you think that government intervention will actually do more good than harm in the case of global warming?

|9.22.05 @ 12:01PM|#

"Free rider, tragedy of the commmons, and Mexican standoff dynamics are the real Achilles Heel of the anti-regulation crowd."

No, actually, we understand it much better than the regulation crowd. The weakness is in the regulation crowds failure to understand rent-seeking.

"Apparently not enough to get the Big Three to be serious about hybrids, until Japan showed there was a market."

Again, exactly my point. The Big Three use their lobbying might (often, in conjunction with their unions and consumer safety groups) to shut U.S. entrepreneurs out of the market entirely, suppressing competition. It's no surprise that the innovative spark comes from competition that isn't under a sovereign that the Big Three can use to suppress competition.

MP|9.22.05 @ 12:04PM|#

Just how is the tragedy of the commons an Achilles' Heel of the anti-regulation crowd? We want to divvy the damn thing up and sell it to private owners.

Let me know when you get all of your fish to stay in your section of the ocean.

fyodor|9.22.05 @ 12:04PM|#

Whence did the concept of private property arise at all, if not from the realization of the tragedy of the commons?

Good point. Private property is a much fairer and more efficient means of economic allocation than the commons...when it is feasible. Which is most of the time. I definte "environmental problem" as one in which there is an inevitable commons, where as aspect of the commons is unavoidable. (Since, following logically from what I said immediately prior, it should be avoided whenever possible.)

|9.22.05 @ 12:04PM|#

"tragedy of the commons" - again, the weakness is in the regulation crowd's thinking. The state itself is the biggest commons of them all - as Joe ably demonstrates every time he advocates eminent domain for any purpose.

|9.22.05 @ 12:05PM|#

Shannon--

If there WERE some gas-replacement technology on the horizon, that argument would hold more weight. As it stands now, there's nothing that even comes CLOSE to gas. For your example to work, there not only has to be a replacement for gas and the internal combustion engine, it has to be cheap enough that nobody would want to continue using gas and engines.

For what it's worth, however, while I DO think global warming is manmade, I also think peak oil will cut carbon emissions for us. So I'm not arguing in favor of coercive solutions--but I would, if I thought gas supplies woulld remain the same for another century or so.

|9.22.05 @ 12:05PM|#

"It's no surprise that the innovative spark comes from competition that isn't under a sovereign that the Big Three can use to suppress competition."

And Sallie is an agent in the efforts to suppress competition.

|9.22.05 @ 12:07PM|#

These would be the same rational people who still smoke despite knowing about lung cancer, still go to tanning beds despite knowing about melanoma, still have unprotected sex despite knowing where babies come from, and still build houses in flood zones despite knowing about water damage?

All ARE quite rational decisions.

Smoking may increase your odds of lung cancer, but it does not increase your odds to anywhere near 100%. Do I risk the increased possibility of lung cancer sometime in the future, or do I relieve my stress NOW? The answer to that is usually a rational decision. Same with tanning and fucking.

People build in flood zones because the government bails them out. The free-market insurance industry set their rates to make that a high risk, and the government lets people off the hook with low taxpayer-subsidized rates.

With global warming, the alarmists have to first ask why the free market isn't responding to their alarms. Is it because government is subsidizing inefficient use of fuel (always a possibility if government is involved), are the scientific claims false (some of them clearly are), or are the probablilties highly exaggerated (ala tanning and skin cancer)?

The free market already provides loads of alternatives for every individual who cares about the subject to change their fuel use. The problem is for most of the alarmists individual action is never good enough. Alarmists on any subject are never happy until everyone else makes the same choices they made.

|9.22.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Objective science rarely enters the minds of those who are emotionally involved in this issue. The layman brings a lifetime worth of baggage to the debate and exposes his true philosophy when he opines. Reality matters little to him. The lefty screeches a doomsday scenario, the righty calls it a leftist conspiracy and true science is drowned out in the idiotic cacophony.

|9.22.05 @ 12:08PM|#

"So, yes, people will voluntarily adapt to address tragedies of the commons when they are educated about its inherent problems."

You have no idea what the phrase refers to, do you? The lesson of the commons is that a universally accessable good will NOT result in voluntary adaptations to address the problem. It will result in a rush to sqeeze out one's own share from a declining resource, until the resource is destroyed.

"Just how is the tragedy of the commons an Achilles' Heel of the anti-regulation crowd? We want to divvy the damn thing up and sell it to private owners."

You can't divvy up the atmosphere. The carbon you release into your volume spreads out, melts ice 10,000 miles away, and caused flooding and weather swings.

In such cases, you're left with the useless solution of voluntary reductions - which, if they have a cost, amoung to the unilateral disarmament by the most responsible, quickly followed by their extinction at the hands of the least responsible.

Phil|9.22.05 @ 12:08PM|#

We want to divvy the damn thing up and sell it to private owners.

OK, who get to own the atmosphere? And how do you stop me from inhaling air from it, and exhaling into it?

|9.22.05 @ 12:13PM|#

The current problems of North Atlantic overfishing can be directly traced back to anti-trust actions taken in the 30s and 40s. Prior to that, local canneries only did business with local fishers. Once the state blew the voluntary historic mechanism that was in place to protect the fisheries - surprise - a tragedy of the commons ensued.

Which isn't to say that problems weren't inevitable to some extent as populations boomed.

Dave W.|9.22.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Best Joe ever.

Phil|9.22.05 @ 12:21PM|#

I'd just like to point out that if we had goddamned permanent moonbases like Stanley Kubrick said we would have four years ago, none of this would be an issue. I want my moonbase!

|9.22.05 @ 12:22PM|#

The carbon you release into your volume spreads out, melts ice 10,000 miles away, and caused flooding and weather swings.

Maybe your carbon does, but mine doesn't.

|9.22.05 @ 12:26PM|#

"tragedy of the commons" - again, the weakness is in the regulation crowd's thinking. The state itself is the biggest commons of them all - as Joe ably demonstrates every time he advocates eminent domain for any purpose."

I was about to plink quasibill for making a statement that is wholly irrelevant to the conversation, but in fact, he ably demonstrates the ad homenim "logic" that Jennifer and Slode point to when discussing the kneejerk denial that characterizes liberarians' position on global warming and its possible solutions. See, the stats is bad, mm-kay, and joe likes eminent domain.

Phil|9.22.05 @ 12:45PM|#

And I'd like to plink joe for attributing quasibill's statement to "kneejerk denial that characterizes liberarians' position on global warming and its possible solutions," when I in fact made the same point as joe regarding the atmosphere at the same time that he did.

|9.22.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Phil, I freely admit that there is a minority of libertarians, such as yourself, Jennefer, and thoreau, who rise above such intellectual failure.

|9.22.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Jennifer:

Spot-on.

The problem here is that there are really only two "natural" market incentives to develop better fuel technology. One is the drop in supply. Two is a direct effect on one's well-being from usage. (One) is the only viable consequence here, simply because (two) is compromised by the problems of time horizons of human life expectancy, and physical scale.

While I'd like to think that, in a perfect world, people would change their daily routines based solely on scientific info, that's really not the case. I don't share quasibill's optimism. His long-ago question asked, if you can't get the majority to voluntarily do something, how can you get them to vote to get the government to do it. What that doesn't appreciate is the ability of a more centralized body to better address issues that lie beyond the immediate scale & time horizons of individuals. Yes, as much as I hate to say it, there are some instances where a central body is better at dealing with issues that transcend property lines and human time horizons. This isn't to say that the federal government should have carte blanche to do as it wishes, but just that putting complete faith in selfish individuals to voluntarily address problems that are beyond their horizons is misguided libertarianism.

|9.22.05 @ 3:46PM|#

"The second post on this thread, Joe true to form, immediately claims the author has "baggage", as if that somehow changes the facts and logic she presents. Its a thoroughly disgraceful way to argue. The Reason article was well written and argued."

Would that include the part in which she accuses the overwhelming majority of climate scientists of pushing phoney data, because they get government grants and seek to be published in science journals?

|9.22.05 @ 3:47PM|#

Joe,

While I may not agree with quasibill's position, I don't think that one could fairly characterize it as "kneejerk". Sounds like he's thought this through pretty thoroughly.

I also fear that your perception that the majority of libertarians fall for what you call an intellectual failure, may be causing you to jerk your knee in the other direction (just as painful!)...and erroneously dismiss actual valid arguments and scientific points as kneejerk libertarian desire for global warming to not be true, and/or "intellectual failure", as well.

|9.22.05 @ 3:51PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

|9.22.05 @ 3:58PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

|9.22.05 @ 4:04PM|#

First, the believers in the theory always end up with a solution that supports their political views and biases.

So do the opponents, it often seems.

Fourth, there is a huge gulf between what the real scientists seem to have to say and what the lay journalists have to say about what the scientists say.

There is some truth to that. I'm not entirely sold myself on the theory. But I think a quick look at the pace of global temperature increases throughout the world over the last few decades, along with datapoints such as the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, is enough to make the subject worthy of active discussion. Even if you oppose a ham-handed, economically-suicidal response such as Kyoto.

|9.22.05 @ 4:07PM|#

"Would that include the part in which she accuses the overwhelming majority of climate scientists of pushing phoney data, because they get government grants and seek to be published in science journals?"

Doesn't change the fact that you did indeed resort to the ad-hominem fallacy right off the bat. Jus sayin, is all.

|9.22.05 @ 4:09PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

|9.22.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

Further, what about your argument that because she once said something you don't agree with that the entire article should be disregarded? I have yet to read one cogent argument against the numorous reasonable ones given in the article. But reason, experimentation and argument are not something the proponents of global warming seem to be interested in.

|9.22.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

|9.22.05 @ 4:25PM|#

"Would that include the part in which she accuses the overwhelming majority of climate scientists of pushing phoney data, because they get government grants and seek to be published in science journals?"

Doesn't change the fact that you did indeed resort to the ad-hominem fallacy right off the bat. Jus sayin, is all.

|9.22.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

Further, what about your argument that because she once said something you don't agree with that the entire article should be disregarded? I have yet to read one cogent argument against the numorous reasonable ones given in the article. But reason, experimentation and argument are not something the proponents of global warming seem to be interested in.

|9.22.05 @ 4:34PM|#

I agree that recognition of actual commons problems is a weakness of many libertarians. The knee jerk comes from the left claiming that everything from parks to land I own to mineral wealth are commons problems when they aren't.

As to regulatory solutions to commons problems, the questions have to do with what each of us has a right to in terms of the commons in question. Problems arise when someone makes the claim that they have a right to air that is unmodified by others. Not only is such a standard unreasonable, it asserts that the least tolerant of us get to dictate global air use for everyone else.

To me, you need to demonstrate that action A is causing measurable harm B before imposing a regulation. Absent the harm standard, regulation of the commons becomes purely political. You see this all the time in the case of public lands - hunting vs. ATVs vs. backpackers. Political systems are poorly equipped to do anything other than grant the majority their way and hose minority view holders. It is unobvious to me that backpackers should be able to see an elk when they go out but a sportsman shouldn't be able to shoot an elk when he goes out.

|9.22.05 @ 4:37PM|#

I agree that recognition of actual commons problems is a weakness of many libertarians. The knee jerk comes from the left claiming that everything from parks to land I own to mineral wealth are commons problems when they aren't.

As to regulatory solutions to commons problems, the questions have to do with what each of us has a right to in terms of the commons in question. Problems arise when someone makes the claim that they have a right to air that is unmodified by others. Not only is such a standard unreasonable, it asserts that the least tolerant of us get to dictate global air use for everyone else.

To me, you need to demonstrate that action A is causing measurable harm B before imposing a regulation. Absent the harm standard, regulation of the commons becomes purely political. You see this all the time in the case of public lands - hunting vs. ATVs vs. backpackers. Political systems are poorly equipped to do anything other than grant the majority their way and hose minority view holders. It is unobvious to me that backpackers should be able to see an elk when they go out but a sportsman shouldn't be able to shoot an elk when he goes out.

|9.22.05 @ 4:37PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

Further, what about your argument that because she once said something you don't agree with that the entire article should be disregarded? I have yet to read one cogent argument against the numorous reasonable ones given in the article. But reason, experimentation and argument are not something the proponents of global warming seem to be interested in.

|9.22.05 @ 4:39PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

Further, what about your argument that because she once said something you don't agree with that the entire article should be disregarded? I have yet to read one cogent argument against the numorous reasonable ones given in the article. But reason, experimentation and argument are not something the proponents of global warming seem to be interested in.

|9.22.05 @ 4:42PM|#

Joe,

She never accused them of that. She simply stated that both proponents of and opponents of global warming have reason to be biased. Her point was that from the global warming perspective, any scientist who believes is impecible and any skeptic is a hack, this despite the fact that its equally possible that both sides can have biases. Again, you shoot the messanger rather than respond to argument.

Further, what about your argument that because she once said something you don't agree with that the entire article should be disregarded? I have yet to read one cogent argument against the numorous reasonable ones given in the article. But reason, experimentation and argument are not something the proponents of global warming seem to be interested in.

|9.22.05 @ 4:45PM|#

I agree that recognition of actual commons problems is a weakness of many libertarians. The knee jerk comes from the left claiming that everything from parks to land I own to mineral wealth are commons problems when they aren't.

As to regulatory solutions to commons problems, the questions have to do with what each of us has a right to in terms of the commons in question. Problems arise when someone makes the claim that they have a right to air that is unmodified by others. Not only is such a standard unreasonable, it asserts that the least tolerant of us get to dictate global air use for everyone else.

To me, you need to demonstrate that action A is causing measurable harm B before imposing a regulation. Absent the harm standard, regulation of the commons becomes purely political. You see this all the time in the case of public lands - hunting vs. ATVs vs. backpackers. Political systems are poorly equipped to do anything other than grant the majority their way and hose minority view holders. It is unobvious to me that backpackers should be able to see an elk when they go out but a sportsman shouldn't be able to shoot an elk when he goes out.

|9.22.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Is Global Warming causing the meltdown of Reason's server?

|9.22.05 @ 5:34PM|#

The key arguments to global warming are the computer models, which have been empirically shown to be useless. Just thought I'd mention that.

And just because I can't ever resist taking a shot at joe.

"Would that include the part in which she accuses the overwhelming majority of climate scientists of pushing phoney data, because they get government grants and seek to be published in science journals?"

I'd say probably not, since I'd assume he's talking about stuff that was actually written in the article, rather than just made up by you.

|9.22.05 @ 5:41PM|#

This is a misunderstanding/mischaracterization of how science works. Not every scientific question is amenable to direct, straightforward experimentation, and not all experimental, modeling, or other results are unambiguous to interpret. It's quite common to appeal to a scientific consensus in these situations; global warming is hardly the first, and it certainly won't be the last.

and in my case, not being a scientist and frankly being bored by the actual scientific questions involved in the debate, albeit concerned about their repercussions, i have no problem with defaulting to scientific consensus on this one. forgive me if i want my elected officials to do the same. their job is not to come up with official stances on what is scientifically proven and what isn't; but rather to come up with solutions.

|9.22.05 @ 5:42PM|#

This is a misunderstanding/mischaracterization of how science works. Not every scientific question is amenable to direct, straightforward experimentation, and not all experimental, modeling, or other results are unambiguous to interpret. It's quite common to appeal to a scientific consensus in these situations; global warming is hardly the first, and it certainly won't be the last.

and in my case, not being a scientist and frankly being bored by the actual scientific questions involved in the debate, albeit concerned about their repercussions, i have no problem with defaulting to scientific consensus on this one. forgive me if i want my elected officials to do the same. their job is not to come up with official stances on what is scientifically proven and what isn't; but rather to come up with solutions.

(apologies is this is a double post)

|9.22.05 @ 6:13PM|#

Reasonoid: "If this gets double posted AND it is proven to be caused by human action, then we're willing to listen to Joe"

|9.22.05 @ 6:48PM|#

quasibill has a valid point: Suppose it's true that voluntary solutions can't work because people are really selfish and don't care about the future. Then in a democracy or representative republic, attempting political solutions is equally utopian, because you'd never get a majority to vote for lawmakers and laws who promise to make them act unselfishly and with foresight.

The fact that pro-environmentalist laws and politicians exist shows that the impulse to unselfish and foresighted with regard to environmental matters is there. You just have to find the right way to harness it.

However, joe also has a valid point: Nobody wants to be a sucker. Nobody wants to waste their time. Nobody wants to be the only person to expend their money and effort on pro-environmental actions if one person's effort is not enough to make a difference. That's why people vote for pro-environmental laws and lawmakers -- to force other people to act.

But the answer is not abandoning voluntary efforts in favor of coercive ones. The answer is to structure the voluntary efforts in ways that address the fear of being a sucker.

The conditional pledge -- "I'll undertake this action, but only if you will too; otherwise the deal is off" -- is one possible answer. And a public pledge, leveraged with PR, can hook into the forces of the market. Example:

"This is a public announcement by DeepGreenSee, a private nonprofit organization dedicated to cleaner air, cleaner water, and fighting the threat of global warming. With your donations, we're researching and developing pollution-reducing technologies. And we're publishing and sharing those technologies with industries.

"Today, MegaManu Corp. signed a pledge with DeepGreenSee agreeing to reduce emissions by 20 percent over the next 10 years, if 10 of its leading competitors around the world will do the same. In the event the participating companies fail to meet this goal, in its place they'll make specified donations to environmental clean-up organizations. [An escape-clause penalty serving the purpose of a non-compliance fine, in other words.]

"Details of the pledge and the penalties are available on our Web site. We'll also post and publicize the names of any MegaManu competitors who have been invited to sign the pledge, as well as those that do so. Visit www.deepgreensee.org to find out which companies care about the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the health of our planet -- and which ones don't."

(I wonder if current anti-trust laws would be an impediment to such a voluntary cooperative approach?)

|9.22.05 @ 6:58PM|#

We at Big Evil Corp. are working harder than ever to destroy the planet, in order to bring you lower prices.

theOneState|9.22.05 @ 7:02PM|#

I keep trying to post a question, doesn't work. Hope y'all're still reading.

Question: What is the proper libertarian position on global warming that we (libertarians) are supposedly fooling ourselves into taking?

There have been accusations and concurrences in here that libertarians hold various anti-gw views (either we don't belive it exists or we don't believe it's bad or we don't believe we caused it) b/c we need to make the issue fit our world view.

What world view is that?!?!???

It's just science (some of it). There's no libertarian position on this issue, is there? Neither side looks better on a libertarian than the other.

Maybe the politics of the issue gets left and right all worked up, but please leave the rest of us out of it. We don't have a dog in this fight.

Except, you know, we like to prevent pointless and excessive government spending and to...ah prevent the destruction of the world. (It's complex...)

|9.22.05 @ 7:04PM|#

BE - We bring bad things to life.

|9.22.05 @ 7:09PM|#

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that man-made global warming has been proven beyond a doubt... What is the non-coercive free-market solution for that?

First, I would say that general taxation for punative or purely demand-reducing purposes is the wrong approach. It doesn't actually positively address the problem. And more importantly the incentives for the government are all bad. The solution should be as far from government and the general fund as possible.

The best solution I see is to make sellers of products which add CO2 to the atmosphere explicitly remove the equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. If they don't do it themselves, they pay someone else to do it. Some independent body officiates the process to make sure that the producers and reducers are doing what they say they're doing.

These folks claim a 20 cents per gallon of gas cost for atmospheric extraction. The TerraPass people seem to charge around 7 cents per gallon, but they are likely currently buying the lowest hanging fruit. That price will rise as more people need to purchase CO2 reduction services. But as more reducers enter the CO2 extraction market, newer and cheaper technologies will be brought to bear on the problem.

|9.22.05 @ 7:10PM|#

I should also note that the solution I propose is feasible in an anarchist society as well. After all, it isn't Aunt Mabel who owns the buildings along Wall Street that are going to be in New York Bay after a couple decades of this hypothetical proven catastrophic global warming.

Since the vast majority of carbon that goes into the air passes through some large company in the process, those large companies can be pressured by the other businesses and insurance interests in the economy into fixing their sea-level rising practices. The energy producers can enter into a cooperative agreement to pay for the CO2 reductions that offset their production. As the proposed solution requires no government or external taxing body, it seems a likely way to go.

Phil|9.22.05 @ 7:17PM|#

Suppose it's true that voluntary solutions can't work because people are really selfish and don't care about the future. Then in a democracy or representative republic, attempting political solutions is equally utopian, because you'd never get a majority to vote for lawmakers and laws who promise to make them act unselfishly and with foresight.

I've seen this bandied about several times, but consider this: Left to their own devices, most people (well, most Americans) won't set aside a significant amount, if any, of their earnings for savings for the future. They'll consume their entire income each month on necessities and extras. And yet they also will punish with electoral death any politician that doesn't support Social Security, which forces them to give up part of their paycheck now in exchange for future income security later. So I don't necessarily take as a given that people won't vote to be forced to do what they won't voluntarily do themselves.

Also, fuck the fucking Reason server with a giant double-headed dildo.

|9.22.05 @ 7:33PM|#

As a scientist, I would never trust any climate model run on the Reason server.

|9.22.05 @ 7:57PM|#

Screw this, I've been posting replies all afternoon, and I've had it.

There is no way I'm going back and recomposing the half dozen responses I have to the weak-assed anti-joe snipes from the denial crew.

|9.22.05 @ 8:08PM|#

Maybe the strong assed anti-joe snipes were eaten by the computers.

|9.23.05 @ 1:36AM|#

Just put sunscreens in orbit to block some of the solar energy that is heating the atmosphere. Oh, wait. That plan doesn't allow someone to mount the moral high ground and brag about his Prius. Sorry.

|9.23.05 @ 3:44AM|#

Could a person who proudly postures and preens per his Prius be pronounced priapetic?

|9.23.05 @ 4:29AM|#

The key arguments to global warming are the computer models, which have been empirically shown to be useless. Just thought I'd mention that.

I said that in debates around here before. But a bunch of non-scientist types told me I was an idiot who didn't, couldn't know anything.

I have a PhD in engineering and I know a LOT about fluid dynamics. I do not, however, have the right medium to teach partial differential equations here, nor do I have the patience. Let alone the Navier-Stokes equations.

I will say that the fluids models I've seen put into climate models are bogus. They don't pass what we engineers call "a first order sanity check". That's a concept used by those of us who design things which people's lives depend on. I mean, when the engineering absolutely, positively has to be right, you look for every possible way to cross-check your work.

GW "scientists", and climate modellers in particular, have never exhibited half the sweat that I see in the people I work with every day. Climate modellers are not "on the line" to get it right, the way those of us are who design bridges, buildings, and air planes for a living.

This stuff I'm talking about isn't in the peer reviewed journal articles, because those are written by scientists, who the public somehow seems to perceive as having golden hallows over their brows. We engineers, when we speak up, are routinely called idiots who couldn't possibly know anything.

I'm just an idiot engineer. And I'm still waiting to meet a "climate scientist" who actually knows something about fluid dynamics.......somebody, anybody, lemme know if you see one of those running around your neighborhood, would you? Because I haven't seen it yet. All I've seen are doomsayers who have PhD's in "science".

"Science", apparently, is not responsible for making sure that anything actually "works". And that is my chief reason for not trusting or believing "scientists" a priori.

The engineering perspective has essentially been ruled out of the GW debate. But I suppose most of you don't understand enough to be bothered by that fact.


Okay, I got that rant off my chest. Now I feel better.

But remember, I probably work for a god-awful CORPORATION. So you can't trust me.

That's pretty much the problem with most engineers, isn't it?


Eric II,

But I think a quick look at the pace of global temperature increases throughout the world over the last few decades, along with datapoints such as the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, is enough to make the subject worthy of active discussion.

If you looked at what the literature says, you'd know that the "evidence" of surface temperature warming is nowhere near as clear as you imply it to be. You've listened to the MSM too long.


The free market already provides loads of alternatives for every individual who cares about the subject to change their fuel use.

Really? What's your alternative to electricity?

quasbill,

people will boycott companies that unneccessarily use the damaging fuel, or sell it indiscriminately.

Define "unnecessary", if you would.

At what point do you start deciding what I can eat for dinner, based on how much energy it takes to cook it?

Jennifer,

there not only has to be a replacement for gas and the internal combustion engine, it has to be cheap enough that nobody would want to continue using gas and engines.

I like your line of questioning, though I disagree with your conclusion that GW is all man made. Or even that most of it is man made. However, you ask this very good question:

What is the non-coercive free-market solution

The answer, in a nutshell, is that there is no non-coercive solution.


What all the GW-The-World-Is-Ending people don't get, is that even if you imposed the most draconian measures on US and Europe, it would make zero difference. Because China, India, and the rest of the Third World are NOT going to change tracks and stop burning fossil fuels. And their energy consumption, due to their population, is going to dwarf Western energy consumption in a real big way. Real soon, too.

Want to fix the problem? Develop better technology that does away with fossil fuel use. But doing anything -- anything -- that makes people poorer than they now are, is counter productive.

I do R&D for a living. I manage budgets. I have small teams of engineers and scientists working for me. I can tell you first hand: poor people cannot afford R&D, or the costs of taking R&D results and turning them into products that can be sold. I know what kind of budgets are required.

I've posited before that it's because hard-core libertarians refuse to admit the existence of any problem which cannot be solved exclusively by Rugged Individualism and/or the Unfettered Free Market.

The pure Randian types are like that. Some of us are quite clear on the limits of Rugged Individualism, and the fact that the Free Market is not God Incarnate.

MP,

One can accept the science behind GW without believing in an impending global catastrophe.

This is one of the most rational comments I found on this whole thread. This is my camp.

GW may exist. It is by no means clear that man is the dominant cause of it. Nor is it clear that the end result will be catastrophic for man.

We know, beyond doubt, that there was a major climate shift on earth about 2500 years ago. Chinese civilization, for example, began by growing wheat on the north China plains. Today you would have a very hard time growing enough wheat to support the same population that existed then -- because back then, there was a lot more rain.

Ditto for the Mediterrainian world, which got more rain 2500 years ago than it does now.

The earth may be warming. But it could very well be following an entirely natural cycle that we a) don't understand and b) couldn't control even if we understood it.

This doesn't mean man hasn't contributed (I think he has). But the evidence is not clear enough to convince me we should do -- anything.

|9.23.05 @ 6:45AM|#

Could a person who proudly postures and preens per his Prius be pronounced priapetic?

You can use a three dollar word if you like. I just call him a wanker.

Is anyone developing prius-envy now that a gallon of gas costs an arm and a firstborn? Joe and I are safe since we drove Honda Civics. How's everyone else holding up?

|9.23.05 @ 7:02AM|#

We engineers, when we speak up, are routinely called idiots who couldn't possibly know anything.

Some idiot engineer suggested placing sunscreens in orbit to limit warming. What a moron.

|9.23.05 @ 10:07AM|#

Why wouldn?t we trust Baliunas? Because she is either ill-informed or blatantly dishonest. For instance, she writes: ?In the 2001 study, Hansen and his co-author predicted ?additional warming in the next 50 years of ??C???C.? That estimate, which falls near the bottom of the IPCC?s forecasts.?

However, she conveniently leaves out the figures to which the term ?additional? refers in Hansen?s 2001 article; ?a minimum warming of 0.5?C by 2050.? Adding the .75 to the base .5 provides a projection of an increase of 1.25 degree C by 2050. Not near the bottom of the IPCC range but near the top (see figure 9.14, p. 555). Moreover, the ?technical optimism? Baliunas attributes to Hansen assumes international cooperation, not the liaise-faire approach implied by Sal Gal.

On sea level change from the same Hansen (2001)article cited by Baliunas? ?Although this warming is more moderate than in business-as-usual scenarios, if it is maintained for a century the Earth?s temperature will approach that of the middle Pliocene (2.75 million years ago), when the world was about 2?C warmer than today and sea level was at least 25 m higher?

|9.23.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Bob, if you don't know what a question mark is for, don't use them...Please!

|9.23.05 @ 12:58PM|#

Really? What's your alternative to electricity?

Who said anything about an alternative to electricity? There are alternative ways to generate electricity.

http://www.homepower.com/

Perhaps your community outlaws such things, but then that's an intereference to the free market.

These may not seem like cost-efficient solutions for individuals, I'd imagine the return-on-investment would be in the 20-year range for many. Perhaps EZ credit terms are available. But since alarmists rarely give much of a damn how much additional regulation is going to cost everyone, I don't see why they would care about costs with individual solutions. Their will to coerce seems stronger than their will to their other principles.

|9.23.05 @ 3:22PM|#

There are alternative ways to generate electricity.

Yes, there are. About 15 years ago I was working in the gas and electric company business.

If the regs were quite so rediculous, we'd very likely have more efficient base power plants today. But instead we shot most of our R&D wad developing ways to clean up emissions.

I will always contend that the best first approach would have been to reduce total emissions in the first place. But that was not to be.

Of course, as someone mentioned above, a really good answer would have been nukes. But that would spin up a whole new round of debate.